5 ms·

If you happen to be driving under the influence, it’s the only plan you have.

by xwdv 3y ago

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
Again you should probably specify jurisdiction you want this plan to be under and why you think it's good legal advice, because as the article pointed out, in the UK you can be charged for not providing (and they probably blood test you) and in many areas of the US they will blood test you, so your legal advice of drunken chicken is irresponsible without caveats, which I suppose is somewhat fitting considering you're trying to advise the criminally irresponsible.
mordechai9000 3y ago
In most US states the penalties for refusing are just as bad or worse. License suspension, fine, jail time, and revocation of any professional license you hold. Especially CDL, of course. And anyone looking at your record is just going to assume you were operating under the influence and tried to lie your way out of it, selfishly and without any remorse. In the long run, just taking the penalty and taking steps to avoid repeating your mistake is a much better look.
- i_am_jl 3y ago
  Are there really jurisdictions in the US where the penalty for refusing a chemical test are worse than DUI? That doesn't seem right.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    California for one: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/dui/laws/chemical-test-refusal/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/dui/laws/chemical-test-refusal/
    - i_am_jl 3y ago
      No, the penalties for first DUI are far more harsh than test refusal in CA. Test refusal with 0 DUIs: 48 extra hours in jail; six extra months of required DUI school; 1-year driver’s license suspension 1st misdemeanor DUI: up to 6 months in jail, $390-1000 fine, 6 months IID, 3-9 months of DUI school.
      - aidenn0 3y ago
        Just refusing the test with 0 DUIs is a mandatory license suspension (even if you are not convicted of a DUI), while you can have multiple DUIs without license suspension.
        i_am_jl 3y ago
        No, first offense DUI in California mandates a license suspension: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=6.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x.... California's DMV will allow people with a suspended license to drive after they've installed an IID in their vehicle, so most lawyers' websites list that as a penalty instead of a 6 month license suspension.
        aidenn0 3y ago
        Thanks for the correction, I was unaware.
  - mordechai9000 3y ago
    You are correct for Washington state, at least. I looked it up and the harsher penalties only take effect if you are convicted after a refusal.
mcpackieh 3y ago
A good life hack is to stop doing that.
retrac 3y ago
I'm not a lawyer, etc. In many jurisdictions you have a legal obligation to provide a sample for testing of intoxication when driving. (You consent to this by agreeing to drive.) In those jurisdictions, refusal to provide a sample is the same as intoxicated driving. I believe the UK is such a jurisdiction. That is to say, the offence is worded in a way where refusing to provide a sample has the same punishment as driving while intoxicated. So you may end up convicted of the drunk driving offence anyway. But you will also appear remorseless, like you were trying to game the system to get away with drunk driving. Which will likely result in a harsher sentence than if you showed contrition.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  > You consent to this by agreeing to drive. I'm also NAL, but the idea that you consent to any test by agreeing to drive sounds dubious. > refusal to provide a sample is the same as intoxicated driving. I believe the UK is such a jurisdiction. for refusing a sample you are likely to be arrested (under suspicion of DUI) if you "do not have a 'reasonable excuse'" not to be tested. You can give a reasonable excuse, such as a medical one, which would probably play into the courts later. I don't know further details because there seems to be confusing terminology around what is directly illegal, versus indirectly illegal - e.g. seems things can be "an offence" but also have stated "defences" to them, such as a reasonable excuse, which seems to imply "a defence in court".
  - i_am_jl 3y ago
    >the idea that you consent to any test by agreeing to drive sounds dubious. This is the case everywhere in the US. The term 'implied consent' refers to the idea that a driver consents to chemical tests by virtue of operating an automobile on public roads.
    - Chris2048 3y ago
      Hmm, I wonder if it's an unusual use of the word? reading online, many of the description say "an implicit agreement". I think the determinate would be: could you test the blood of an unconscious person?
bdcravens 3y ago
Actually many DWI attorneys encourage you to take the breathalyzer, since there are many ways to get those results invalidated in court.
reachn 3y ago
[dead]

If you happen to be driving under the influence, it’s the only plan you have.

by xwdv 3y ago

If you happen to be driving under the influence, it’s the only plan you have.

Again you should probably specify jurisdiction you want this plan to be under and why you think it's good legal advice, because as the article pointed out, in the UK you can be charged for not providing (and they probably blood test you) and in many areas of the US they will blood test you, so your legal advice of drunken chicken is irresponsible without caveats, which I suppose is somewhat fitting considering you're trying to advise the criminally irresponsible.

mordechai9000 3y ago

In most US states the penalties for refusing are just as bad or worse. License suspension, fine, jail time, and revocation of any professional license you hold. Especially CDL, of course. And anyone looking at your record is just going to assume you were operating under the influence and tried to lie your way out of it, selfishly and without any remorse. In the long run, just taking the penalty and taking steps to avoid repeating your mistake is a much better look.

i_am_jl 3y ago
Are there really jurisdictions in the US where the penalty for refusing a chemical test are worse than DUI? That doesn't seem right.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  California for one: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/dui/laws/chemical-test-refusal/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/dui/laws/chemical-test-refusal/
  - i_am_jl 3y ago
    No, the penalties for first DUI are far more harsh than test refusal in CA. Test refusal with 0 DUIs: 48 extra hours in jail; six extra months of required DUI school; 1-year driver’s license suspension 1st misdemeanor DUI: up to 6 months in jail, $390-1000 fine, 6 months IID, 3-9 months of DUI school.
    - aidenn0 3y ago
      Just refusing the test with 0 DUIs is a mandatory license suspension (even if you are not convicted of a DUI), while you can have multiple DUIs without license suspension.
      - i_am_jl 3y ago
        No, first offense DUI in California mandates a license suspension: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=6.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x.... California's DMV will allow people with a suspended license to drive after they've installed an IID in their vehicle, so most lawyers' websites list that as a penalty instead of a 6 month license suspension.
        aidenn0 3y ago
        Thanks for the correction, I was unaware.
- mordechai9000 3y ago
  You are correct for Washington state, at least. I looked it up and the harsher penalties only take effect if you are convicted after a refusal.

mcpackieh 3y ago

A good life hack is to stop doing that.

retrac 3y ago

I'm not a lawyer, etc. In many jurisdictions you have a legal obligation to provide a sample for testing of intoxication when driving. (You consent to this by agreeing to drive.) In those jurisdictions, refusal to provide a sample is the same as intoxicated driving. I believe the UK is such a jurisdiction. That is to say, the offence is worded in a way where refusing to provide a sample has the same punishment as driving while intoxicated. So you may end up convicted of the drunk driving offence anyway. But you will also appear remorseless, like you were trying to game the system to get away with drunk driving. Which will likely result in a harsher sentence than if you showed contrition.

Chris2048 3y ago
> You consent to this by agreeing to drive. I'm also NAL, but the idea that you consent to any test by agreeing to drive sounds dubious. > refusal to provide a sample is the same as intoxicated driving. I believe the UK is such a jurisdiction. for refusing a sample you are likely to be arrested (under suspicion of DUI) if you "do not have a 'reasonable excuse'" not to be tested. You can give a reasonable excuse, such as a medical one, which would probably play into the courts later. I don't know further details because there seems to be confusing terminology around what is directly illegal, versus indirectly illegal - e.g. seems things can be "an offence" but also have stated "defences" to them, such as a reasonable excuse, which seems to imply "a defence in court".
- i_am_jl 3y ago
  >the idea that you consent to any test by agreeing to drive sounds dubious. This is the case everywhere in the US. The term 'implied consent' refers to the idea that a driver consents to chemical tests by virtue of operating an automobile on public roads.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    Hmm, I wonder if it's an unusual use of the word? reading online, many of the description say "an implicit agreement". I think the determinate would be: could you test the blood of an unconscious person?

bdcravens 3y ago

Actually many DWI attorneys encourage you to take the breathalyzer, since there are many ways to get those results invalidated in court.

reachn 3y ago

[dead]